ORGANIZATIONAL "GOALS" are notoriously difficult
to conceptualize. Anderson states, "The concept of goal is
one of the most universal, but also one of the most
troublesome, notions in organizational analysis. It has
received little systematic attention in the parties
literature" (1968, p. 399). While lacking in conceptualizing
party goals, the literature nevertheless prompts Riggs to
observe, "Statements about party orientation often imply
judgments about the 'goals' or 'objectives' of parties"
(1968, p. 57). Dahl warns, "Although it is obvious that
oppositions differ in their goals, it is exceedingly
difficult to reduce differences in goals to a manageable
analytical scheme." He proceeds to say that the basic
problem is one of distinguishing between short-run and
long-run goals. "I simply postulate that certain goals,
whether long-run or short-run, public or private, are
'dominant' or 'controlling'; and I distinguish between (a)
aims or goals and (b) strategies" (1966, p. 341).

Put another way, goals and strategies suggest "ends" and
"means." According to Perrow, "Since there is only a
relative distinction between means and ends and since,
therefore, any end or goal can be seen as a means to another
goal, one is free to enter the hierarchy of means and ends
at any point" (1968, p. 305). Perrow points out that goal
analysis depends on the purposes of the research and that
one man's goal may be another man's means or strategy. For
the purpose of the ICPP project, the primary interest is in
the goal of placing avowed representatives in government
positions. This goal can be pursued by means of different
strategies, the three main ones being (1) competing openly
with other parties through the electoral process to win
government position; (2) disrupting, invalidating, or
proscribing the activities of other parties so that
government positions are won by fraud or default; and (3)
operating outside the electoral process to place members in
government positions through force or to induce governmental
resignations and thus promote access to office.

The term "strategy" is often used loosely in political
science, with the result that "strategy" and "tactics" are
frequently juxtaposed and treated synonymously--especially
in the parties literature. Both terms, of course, have
military origins, with "tactics" referring to localized
hostilities where adversaries are in contact and "strategy"
to planning for the conduct of an entire campaign or war
(Brodie 1968, p. 281). Military strategy can be viewed in
relationship to the end goal of winning a war; party
strategy can be viewed in relationship to the party's goal
of placing its representatives in government positions. In
their pure forms, the three main strategies for pursuing
this goal distinguish among (1) competitive parties, (2)
monopolistic or restrictive parties, and (3) subversive
parties, although some parties may follow various mixes of
the three forms.

Returning to the military analogy, we can view party
tactics as the counterpart of military tactics. If military
tactics refer to the activities of opposing armies engaged
in localized hostilities, party tactics can be understood as
the activities of parties seeking occupancy of political
office. Just as military tactics need to be evaluated in the
light of military strategy, party tactics must also be
studied in the context of party strategy.

The distinction between strategy and tactics may be
helped by introducing the notion of the breadth of a
party's strategy. A competitive party that follows a narrow
strategy (it might be called a narrowly oriented competitive
party) limits its activities (tactics) to election
campaigning. A monopolistic party that follows a narrow
strategy limits its activities to repressing competition. A
subversive party that follows a narrow strategy limits its
activities to sabotage and disruption. In each case, the
tactics employed are all directly related to the strategy.
On the other hand, a broadly oriented party may employ a
number of tactics (engage in a variety of activities) that
are not directly related to the strategy. These
indirect tactics might be used in support of two or
even all three strategies.

In addition to scoring parties for reliance on each main
strategy, we code them on a three-point scale for the amount
of energy or attention they devote to various party
activities, which are classified for their likely usage as
direct tactics supporting a given strategy or as indirect
tactics supporting more than one.

Basic Variable 6.00: Open
Competition in the Electoral Process

Parties have been defined as organizations that pursue a
goal of placing their avowed representatives in government
positions. "Placing" should be broadly in-